skip to main content
10.1145/3605468.3605500acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswipsceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Systematic Literature Review on Physical and Action Based Activities in Computing Education for Early Years and Primary

Published: 27 September 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Educational systems worldwide are including computer science (CS) education in compulsory curriculums from a very young age. Many activities have been proposed to teach young children CS which include different approaches such as unplugged, physical computing, or completely virtual programming interfaces. Despite this, more research is needed to understand which pedagogical approaches capitalise on young children’s cognitive and affective capacities throughout their development to promote learning outcomes. Grounded cognition (GC) proposes that our perception and thought are highly influenced by our bodily experiences and that dynamic actions such as movement affect our understanding of the world around us. For young children, experiences integrating cognitive and sensory-motor aspects are often used. These activities could be conceptualised as grounded activities, as they incorporate concrete representation and action. However, the extent to which these activities impact children’s learning outcomes has, to our knowledge, not been explored thus far. Moreover, the theoretical background informing these activities and how these map onto the grounded cognition background is often an under-reported aspect in the literature. This study aims to bridge this gap by conducting a systematic literature review. We identified empirical research reporting CS learning activities with a grounded cognition approach and analysed its activities, CS concepts targeted, how their theoretical background informed their pedagogical design and their outcomes. This paper has important implications for computer science education. Firstly, it presents the empirical evidence using this theoretical background with an emphasis on activity design, which will be useful for academics or practitioners looking to incorporate grounded cognition theory into their instruction. Secondly, it identifies significant gaps in the current practices, specifically in the links between theory and practice and thus is a stepping stone for further research in this interdisciplinary area.

References

[1]
Dor Abrahamson and Robb Lindgren. 2014. Embodiment and embodied design.
[2]
Abrar Almjally, Kate Howland, and Judith Good. 2020. Investigating children’s spontaneous gestures when programming using TUIs and GUIs. In Proceedings of the interaction design and children conference. 36–48.
[3]
Charoula Angeli and Nicos Valanides. 2020. Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in human behavior 105 (2020), 105954.
[4]
Valerie Barr and Chris Stephenson. 2011. Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?Acm Inroads 2, 1 (2011), 48–54.
[5]
Lawrence W Barsalou. 2010. Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in cognitive science 2, 4 (2010), 716–724.
[6]
Lawrence W Barsalou. 2020. Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition 3, 1 (2020).
[7]
Tim Bell and Jan Vahrenhold. 2018. CS unplugged—how is it used, and does it work? In Adventures between lower bounds and higher altitudes. Springer, 497–521.
[8]
Marina Umaschi Bers. 2017. Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge.
[9]
Marina Umaschi Bers, Madhu Govind, and Emily Relkin. 2022. Coding as another language: computational thinking, robotics and literacy in first and second grade. In Computational Thinking in PreK-5: Empirical Evidence for Integration and Future Directions. 30–38.
[10]
John B Black. 2010. An embodied/grounded cognition perspective on educational technology. In New science of learning. Springer, 45–52.
[11]
Christian P Brackmann, Marcos Román-González, Gregorio Robles, Jesús Moreno-León, Ana Casali, and Dante Barone. 2017. Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on primary and secondary computing education. 65–72.
[12]
Jerome Seymour Bruner 1966. Toward a theory of instruction. Vol. 59. Harvard University Press.
[13]
Lucie Bryndova and Petri Mali. 2020. Assessing the Current Level of the Computational Thinking Within the Primary and Lower Secondary School Students using Educational Robotics Tasks. In 2020 The 4th International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology. 239–243.
[14]
Lautaro Cabrera, John H Maloney, and David Weintrop. 2019. Programs in the palm of your hand: how live programming shapes children’s interactions with physical computing devices. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 227–236.
[15]
Giuseppe Città, Manuel Gentile, Mario Allegra, Marco Arrigo, Daniela Conti, Simona Ottaviano, Francesco Reale, and Marinella Sciortino. 2019. The effects of mental rotation on computational thinking. Computers & Education 141 (2019), 103613.
[16]
Javier del Olmo-Muñoz, Ramón Cózar-Gutiérrez, and José Antonio González-Calero. 2020. Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of Primary Education. Computers & Education 150 (2020), 103832.
[17]
Hilary Dwyer, Charlotte Hill, Stacey Carpenter, Danielle Harlow, and Diana Franklin. 2014. Identifying elementary students’ pre-instructional ability to develop algorithms and step-by-step instructions. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 511–516.
[18]
Hoda Ehsan and Monica E Cardella. 2017. Capturing the computational thinking of families with young children in out-of-school environments. In 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
[19]
Peggy A Ertmer and Timothy J Newby. 1993. Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance improvement quarterly 6, 4 (1993), 50–72.
[20]
Hylke H Faber, Josina I Koning, Menno DM Wierdsma, Henderien W Steenbeek, and Erik Barendsen. 2019. Observing abstraction in young children solving algorithmic tasks. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives. Springer, 95–106.
[21]
Cameron Lawrence Fadjo. 2012. Developing computational thinking through grounded embodied cognition. Columbia University.
[22]
Katrina Falkner, Sue Sentance, Rebecca Vivian, Sarah Barksdale, Leonard Busuttil, Elizabeth Cole, Christine Liebe, Francesco Maiorana, Monica M McGill, and Keith Quille. 2019. An international comparison of k-12 computer science education intended and enacted curricula. In Proceedings of the 19th Koli calling international conference on computing education research. 1–10.
[23]
Krista Francis, Steven Khan, and Brent Davis. 2016. Enactivism, spatial reasoning and coding. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education 2, 1 (2016), 1–20.
[24]
Diana Franklin, Jen Palmer, Woorin Jang, Elizabeth M Lehman, Jasmine Marckwordt, Randall H Landsberg, Alexandria Muller, and Danielle Harlow. 2020. Exploring Quantum Reversibility with Young Learners. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 147–157.
[25]
Jennifer MB Fugate, Sheila L Macrine, and Christina Cipriano. 2019. The role of embodied cognition for transforming learning. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology 7, 4 (2019), 274–288.
[26]
Brian D Gane, Maya Israel, Noor Elagha, Wei Yan, Feiya Luo, and James W Pellegrino. 2021. Design and validation of learning trajectory-based assessments for computational thinking in upper elementary grades. Computer Science Education 31, 2 (2021), 141–168.
[27]
Anna Gardeli and Spyros Vosinakis. 2019. ARQuest: A tangible augmented reality approach to developing computational thinking skills. In 2019 11th International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications (VS-Games). IEEE, 1–8.
[28]
Shuchi Grover and Satabdi Basu. 2017. Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and boolean logic. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education. 267–272.
[29]
Halil İbrahim Haseski, Ulas Ilic, and Ufuk Tugtekin. 2018. Defining a New 21st Century Skill-Computational Thinking: Concepts and Trends.International Education Studies 11, 4 (2018), 29–42.
[30]
Ziva R Hassenfeld, Madhu Govind, Laura E De Ruiter, and Marina Umashi Bers. 2020. If you can program, you can write: Learning introductory programming across literacy levels. Journal of Information Technology Education. Research 19 (2020), 65.
[31]
Fredrik Heintz, Linda Mannila, and Tommy Färnqvist. 2016. A review of models for introducing computational thinking, computer science and computing in K-12 education. In 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9.
[32]
Felienne Hermans and Efthimia Aivaloglou. 2017. To scratch or not to scratch? A controlled experiment comparing plugged first and unplugged first programming lessons. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on primary and secondary computing education. 49–56.
[33]
Douglas L Holton. 2010. Constructivism+ embodied cognition= enactivism: theoretical and practical implications for conceptual change. In Aera 2010 conference.
[34]
Wendy Huang and Chee-Kit Looi. 2021. A critical review of literature on “unplugged” pedagogies in K-12 computer science and computational thinking education. Computer Science Education 31, 1 (2021), 83–111.
[35]
Shan Jiang and Gary KW Wong. 2022. Exploring age and gender differences of computational thinkers in primary school: A developmental perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 38, 1 (2022), 60–75.
[36]
Ilkka Jormanainen and Markku Tukiainen. 2020. Attractive educational robotics motivates younger students to learn programming and computational thinking. In Eighth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. 54–60.
[37]
Maria Kallia and Quintin Cutts. 2022. Conceptual development in early-years computing education: a grounded cognition and action based conceptual framework. Computer Science Education (2022), 1–27.
[38]
Yiasemina Karagiorgi and Loizos Symeou. 2005. Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 8, 1 (2005), 17–27.
[39]
Barbara Ann Kitchenham, David Budgen, and Pearl Brereton. 2015. Evidence-based software engineering and systematic reviews. Vol. 4. CRC press.
[40]
Richard Konicek-Moran and Page Keeley. 2015. Teaching for conceptual understanding in science. NSTA Press, National Science Teachers Association Arlington.
[41]
Irene Lee, Safinah Ali, Helen Zhang, Daniella DiPaola, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2021. Developing Middle School Students’ AI Literacy. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM technical symposium on computer science education. 191–197.
[42]
Luzia Leifheit, Julian Jabs, Manuel Ninaus, Korbinian Moeller, and Klaus Ostermann. 2018. Programming unplugged: An evaluation of game-based methods for teaching computational thinking in primary school. In ECGBL 2018 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning. Academic Conferences and publishing limited, 344.
[43]
Feng Li, Xi Wang, Xiaona He, Liang Cheng, and Yiyu Wang. 2022. The effectiveness of unplugged activities and programming exercises in computational thinking education: A Meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies (2022), 1–21.
[44]
Qing Li, Bruce Clark, and Ian Winchester. 2010. Instructional design and technology grounded in enactivism: A paradigm shift?British Journal of Educational Technology 41, 3 (2010), 403–419.
[45]
Xing Li, Yi Zhang, and Jing Huang. 2021. Testing a design-based learning approach to enhance elementary students’ computational thinking with experience-sampling method. In 2021 The 3rd World Symposium on Software Engineering. 17–22.
[46]
Robb Lindgren and Mina Johnson-Glenberg. 2013. Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational researcher 42, 8 (2013), 445–452.
[47]
Feiya Luo, Pavlo D Antonenko, and E Christine Davis. 2020. Exploring the evolution of two girls’ conceptions and practices in computational thinking in science. Computers & Education 146 (2020), 103759.
[48]
Andrew Manches, Peter E McKenna, Gnanathusharan Rajendran, and Judy Robertson. 2020. Identifying embodied metaphors for computing education. Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020), 105859.
[49]
Wookhee Min, Bradford Mott, Kyungjin Park, Sandra Taylor, Bita Akram, Eric Wiebe, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, and James Lester. 2020. Promoting computer science learning with block-based programming and narrative-centered gameplay. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG). IEEE, 654–657.
[50]
Akiyuki Minamide, Kazuya Takemata, and Hirofumi Yamada. 2020. Computational Thinking Education Using Stickers and Scanners in Elementary School Classes. In First International Computer Programming Education Conference (ICPEC 2020). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.
[51]
Patricia Murphy. 2003. Defining pedagogy. In Equity in the classroom. Routledge, 17–30.
[52]
Albert Newen, Leon De Bruin, and Shaun Gallagher. 2018. The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford University Press.
[53]
Vassiliki Ntourou, Michail Kalogiannakis, and Sarantos Psycharis. 2021. A study of the impact of Arduino and Visual Programming In self-efficacy, motivation, computational thinking and 5th grade students’ perceptions on Electricity. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 17, 5 (2021), em1960.
[54]
Yasumasa Oomori, Hidekuni Tsukamoto, Hideo Nagumo, Yasuhiro Takemura, Kouki Iida, Akito Monden, and Ken-ichi Matsumoto. 2019. Algorithmic Expressions for Assessing Algorithmic Thinking Ability of Elementary School Children. In 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–8.
[55]
Gerard O’Regan. 2016. Introduction to the history of computing: a computing history primer. Springer.
[56]
Nathaniel Ostashewski, Doug Reid, and Susan Moisey. 2011. Applying constructionist principles to online teacher professional development. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 12, 6 (2011), 143–156.
[57]
Simon P. Rose, MP Jacob Habgood, and Tim Jay. 2020. Designing a programming game to improve children’s procedural abstraction skills in scratch. Journal of Educational Computing Research 58, 7 (2020), 1372–1411.
[58]
Matthew J Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick M Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C Hoffmann, Cynthia D Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M Tetzlaff, Elie A Akl, Sue E Brennan, 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic reviews 10, 1 (2021), 1–11.
[59]
Stamatios Papadakis, Michail Kalogiannakis, and Nicholas Zaranis. 2016. Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: a case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation 10, 3 (2016), 187–202.
[60]
Seymour Papert. 1980. " Mindstorms" Children. Computers and powerful ideas (1980).
[61]
Diana Pérez-Marín, Raquel Hijón-Neira, and Mercedes Martín-Lope. 2018. A methodology proposal based on metaphors to teach programming to children. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de tecnologias del aprendizaje 13, 1 (2018), 46–53.
[62]
Jean Piaget. 1967. Biologie et connaissance (Biology and knowledge).
[63]
Karol Picado-Arce, Stefani Matarrita-Muñoz, Olmer Núñez-Sosa, and Magaly Zúñiga-Céspedes. 2021. Drivers for the Development of Computational Thinking in Costa Rican Students.Comunicar: Media Education Research Journal 29, 68 (2021), 81–92.
[64]
Ana M Pinto-Llorente, Sonia Casillas Martín, Marcos Cabezas González, and Francisco José García-Peñalvo. 2016. Developing computational thinking via the visual programming tool: lego education WeDo. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. 45–50.
[65]
Jerome Proulx. 2008. Some differences between Maturana and Varela’s theory of cognition and constructivism. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education 5, 1 (2008).
[66]
Marcos Román-González, Juan-Carlos Pérez-González, and Carmen Jiménez-Fernández. 2017. Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in human behavior 72 (2017), 678–691.
[67]
Anika Saxena, Chung Kwan Lo, Khe Foon Hew, and Gary Ka Wai Wong. 2020. Designing unplugged and plugged activities to cultivate computational thinking: An exploratory study in early childhood education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 29, 1 (2020), 55–66.
[68]
Lawrence Shapiro and Steven A Stolz. 2019. Embodied cognition and its significance for education. Theory and Research in Education 17, 1 (2019), 19–39.
[69]
Beth Simon and Quintin Cutts. 2012. Peer instruction: A teaching method to foster deep understanding. Commun. ACM 55, 2 (2012), 27–29.
[70]
Arash Soleimani, Keith Evan Green, Danielle Herro, and Ian D Walker. 2016. A tangible, Story-construction process employing spatial, computational-thinking. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 157–166.
[71]
Amber Solomon, Miyeon Bae, Betsy DiSalvo, and Mark Guzdial. 2020. Embodied Representations in Computing Education: How Gesture, Embodied Language, and Tool Use Support Teaching Recursion. (2020).
[72]
Ivana Storjak, Liljana Pushkar, Tomislav Jagust, and Ana Sovic Krzic. 2020. First steps into STEM for young pupils through informal workshops. In 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–5.
[73]
Gabrielė Stupurienė, Anita Juškevičienė, Tatjana Jevsikova, Valentina Dagienė, and Asta Meškauskienė. 2021. Girls’ summer school for physical computing: Methodology and acceptance issues. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives. Springer, 95–108.
[74]
Jiahong Su and Weipeng Yang. 2023. A Systematic Review of Integrating Computational Thinking in Early Childhood Education. Computers and Education Open (2023), 100122.
[75]
Woonhee Sung, Junghyun Ahn, and John B Black. 2017. Introducing computational thinking to young learners: Practicing computational perspectives through embodiment in mathematics education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 22, 3 (2017), 443–463.
[76]
Alaaeddin Swidan and Felienne Hermans. 2017. Programming Education to Preschoolers: Reflections and Observations from a Field Study. In PPIG. 7.
[77]
David R Thomas. 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American journal of evaluation 27, 2 (2006), 237–246.
[78]
Yucnary-Daitiana Torres-Torres, Marcos Román-González, and Juan-Carlos Pérez-González. 2019. Implementation of unplugged teaching activities to foster computational thinking skills in primary school from a gender perspective. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. 209–215.
[79]
Yune Tran. 2019. Computational thinking equity in elementary classrooms: What third-grade students know and can do. Journal of Educational Computing Research 57, 1 (2019), 3–31.
[80]
Anthony Trory, Kate Howland, and Judith Good. 2018. Designing for concreteness fading in primary computing. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 278–288.
[81]
Katerina Tsarava, Luzia Leifheit, Manuel Ninaus, Marcos Román-González, Martin V Butz, Jessika Golle, Ulrich Trautwein, and Korbinian Moeller. 2019. Cognitive correlates of computational thinking: Evaluation of a blended unplugged/plugged-in course. In Proceedings of the 14th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. 1–9.
[82]
Katerina Tsarava, Korbinian Moeller, and Manuel Ninaus. 2018. Board games for training computational thinking. In International Conference on Games and Learning Alliance. Springer, 90–100.
[83]
Mary Webb, Niki Davis, Tim Bell, Yaacov J Katz, Nicholas Reynolds, Dianne P Chambers, and Maciej M Sysło. 2017. Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century: Why, what and when?Education and Information Technologies 22, 2 (2017), 445–468.
[84]
M Webb, A Fluck, M Cox, C Angeli-Valanides, J Malyn-Smith, J Voogt, and J Zagami. 2015. Curriculum-Advancing understanding of the roles of computer science/informatics in the curriculum. (2015).
[85]
David Weintrop, Alexandria K Hansen, Danielle B Harlow, and Diana Franklin. 2018. Starting from Scratch: Outcomes of early computer science learning experiences and implications for what comes next. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on international computing education research. 142–150.
[86]
Steven M Weisberg and Nora S Newcombe. 2017. Embodied cognition and STEM learning: overview of a topical collection in CR: PI. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 2, 1 (2017), 1–6.
[87]
Chad Williams, Emtethal Alafghani, Antony Daley, Kevin Gregory, and Marianella Rydzewski. 2015. Teaching programming concepts to elementary students. In 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9.
[88]
Jeannette M Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (2006), 33–35.
[89]
Gary Ka-Wai Wong and Ho-Yin Cheung. 2020. Exploring children’s perceptions of developing twenty-first century skills through computational thinking and programming. Interactive Learning Environments 28, 4 (2020), 438–450.
[90]
Benjamin Xie, Dastyni Loksa, Greg L Nelson, Matthew J Davidson, Dongsheng Dong, Harrison Kwik, Alex Hui Tan, Leanne Hwa, Min Li, and Amy J Ko. 2019. A theory of instruction for introductory programming skills. Computer Science Education 29, 2-3 (2019), 205–253.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. A Systematic Literature Review on Physical and Action Based Activities in Computing Education for Early Years and Primary

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    WiPSCE '23: Proceedings of the 18th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research
    September 2023
    173 pages
    ISBN:9798400708510
    DOI:10.1145/3605468
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 27 September 2023

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. computing
    2. early childhood education
    3. primary
    4. teaching strategies

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    WiPSCE '23

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 104 of 279 submissions, 37%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 169
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)119
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
    Reflects downloads up to 08 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media